Outcomes Associated With Aortic Balloon Occlusion Time in Patients With Zone 1 Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta.

INTRODUCTION: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has the potential to cause clinically relevant systemic ischemic burden with long durations of aortic occlusion (AO). We aimed to examine the association between balloon occlusion time and clinical complications and mortality outcomes in patients undergoing zone 1 REBOA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acuteregistry patients with Zone 1 REBOA between 2013 and 2022 was performed. Patients with cardiopulmonary resuscitation on arrival or who did not survive past the emergency department were excluded. Total AO times were categorized as follows: <15 min, 15-30 min, 31-60 min, and >60 min. Clinical and procedural variables and in-hospital outcomes were compared across groups using bivariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: There were 327 cases meeting inclusion criteria (n = 51 < 15 min, 83 15-30 min, 98 31-60 min, and 95 > 60 min, respectively). AO >60 min had higher admission lactate (8 ± 6; P = 0.004) compared to all other time groups, but injury severity score, heart rate, and systolic blood pressure were similar. Group average times from admission to definitive hemorrhage control ranged from 82 to 103 min and were similar across groups (85 min in AO >60 group). Longer AO times were associated with greater red blood cell, fresh frozen plasma transfusions (P < 0.001), and vasopressor use (P = 0.001). Mortality was greatest in the >60 min group (73%) versus the <15 min, 15-30 min, and 31-60 min groups (53%, 43%, and 45%, P < 0.001). With adjustment for injury severity score, systolic blood pressure, and lactate, AO >60 min had greater mortality (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.6-9.4; P < 0.001) than other AO duration groups. Among 153 survivors, AO >60 min had a higher rate of multiple organ failure (15.4%) compared to the other AO durations (0%, 0%, and 4%, P = 0.02). There were no differences in amputation rates (0.7%) or spinal cord ischemia (1.4%). acute kidney injury was seen in 41% of >60 min versus 21%, 27%, and 33%, P = 0.42. CONCLUSIONS: Though greater preocclusion physiologic injury may have been present, REBOA-induced ischemic insult was correlated with poor patient outcomes, specifically, REBOA inflation time >60 min had higher rates of mortality and multiple organ failure. Minimizing AO duration should be prioritized, and AO should not delay achieving definitive hemostasis. Partial REBOA may be a solution to extend safe AO time and deserves further study.

Outcomes of vascular trauma associated with an evolution in the use of endovascular management.

OBJECTIVE: The availability of endovascular techniques has led to a paradigm shift in the management of vascular injury. Although previous reports showed trends towards the increased use of catheter-based techniques, there have been no contemporary studies of practice patterns and how these approaches differ by anatomic distributions of injury. The objective of this study is to provide a temporal assessment of the use of endovascular techniques in the management of torso, junctional (subclavian, axillary, iliac), and extremity injury and to evaluate any association with survival and length of stay. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment registry (PROOVIT) is the only large multicenter database focusing specifically on the management of vascular trauma. Patients in the AAST PROOVIT registry from 2013 to 2019 with arterial injuries were queried, and radial/ulnar, and tibial artery injuries were excluded. The primary aim was to evaluate the frequency in use of endovascular techniques over time and by body region. A secondary analysis evaluated the trends for junctional injuries and compared the mortality between those treated with open vs endovascular repair. RESULTS: Of the 3249 patients included, 76% were male, and overall treatment type was 42% nonoperative, 44% open, and 14% endovascular. Endovascular treatment increased an average of 2% per year from 2013 to 2019 (range, 17%-35%; R2 = .61). The use of endovascular techniques for junctional injuries increased by 5% per year (range, 33%-63%; R2 = .89). Endovascular treatment was more common for thoracic, abdominal, and cerebrovascular injuries, and least likely in upper and lower extremity injuries. Injury severity score was higher for patients receiving endovascular repair in every vascular bed except lower extremity. Endovascular repair was associated with significantly lower mortality than open repair for thoracic (5% vs 46%; P < .001) and abdominal injuries (15% vs 38%; P < .001). For junctional injuries, endovascular repair was associated with a non-statistically significant lower mortality (19% vs 29%; P = .099), despite higher injury severity score (25 vs 21; P = .003) compared with open repair. CONCLUSIONS: The reported use of endovascular techniques within the PROOVIT registry increased more than 10% over a 6-year period. This increase was associated with improved survival, especially for patients with junctional vascular injuries. Practices and training programs should account for these changes by providing access to endovascular technologies and instruction in the catheter-based skill sets to optimize outcomes in the future.

Arterial Access Complications Following Percutaneous Femoral Access in 24-Hour Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta Survivors.

INTRODUCTION: With the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) comes the potential for vascular access site complications (VASCs) and limb ischemic sequelae. We aimed to determine the prevalence of VASC and associated clinical and technical factors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 24-h survivors undergoing percutaneous REBOA via the femoral artery in the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute care surgery registry between Oct 2013 and Sep 2021 was performed. The primary outcome was VASC, defined as at least one of the following: hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, arterial stenosis, or the use of patch angioplasty for arterial closure. Associated clinical and procedural variables were examined. Data were analyzed using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney-U tests, and linear regression. RESULTS: There were 34 (7%) cases with VASC among 485 meeting inclusion criteria. Hematoma (40%) was the most common, followed by pseudoaneurysm (26%) and patch angioplasty (21%). No differences in demographics or injury/shock severity were noted between cases with and without VASC. The use of ultrasound (US) was protective (VASC, 35% versus no VASC, 51%; P = 0.05). The VASC rate in US cases was 12/242 (5%) versus 22/240 (9.2%) without US. Arterial sheath size >7 Fr was not associated with VASC. US use increased over time (R2 = 0.94, P < 0.001) with a stable rate of VASC (R2 = 0.78, P = 0.61). VASC were associated with limb ischemia (VASC, 15% versus no VASC, 4%; P = 0.006) and arterial bypass procedures (VASC 3% versus no VASC 0%; P < 0.001) but amputation was uncommon (VASC, 3% versus no VASC, 0.4%; P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous femoral REBOA had a 7% VASC rate which was stable over time. VASC are associated with limb ischemia but need for surgical intervention and/or amputation is rare. The use of US-guided access appears to be protective against VASC and is recommended for use in all percutaneous femoral REBOA procedures.

Contemporary management and time to revascularization in upper extremity arterial injury.

INTRODUCTION: Upper extremity arterial injury is associated with significant morbidity and mortality for trauma patients, but there is a paucity of data to guide the clinician in the management of these injuries. The goals of this review were to characterize the demographics, presentation, clinical management, and outcomes, and to evaluate how time to intervention associates with outcomes in trauma patients with upper extremity vascular injuries. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) Research Data Set for the years 2007-2016 was queried in order to identify adult patients (age ≥ 18) with an upper extremity arterial injury. Patients with brachiocephalic, subclavian, axillary, or brachial artery injury using the 1998 and 2005 versions of the Abbreviated Injury Scale were included. Patients with non-survivable injuries to the brain, traumatic amputation, or other major arterial injuries to the torso or lower extremities were excluded. RESULTS: The data from 7908 patients with upper extremity arterial injuries was reviewed. Of those, 5407 (68.4%) underwent repair of the injured artery. The median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 10 (IQR = 7-18), and 7.7% of patients had a severe ISS (≥ 25). Median time to repair was 120 min (IQR = 60-240 min). Management was open repair in 52.3%, endovascular repair in 7.3%, and combined open and endovascular repairs in 8.8%; amputation occurred in 1.8% and non-operative management was used in 31.6% of patients. Blunt mechanism of injury, crush injury, concomitant fractures/dislocations, and nerve injuries were associated with amputation, whereas simultaneous venous injury was not. There was a significant decrease in the rate of amputation when patients undergoing surgical revascularization did so within 90 min of injury (P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Injuries to arteries of the upper extremity are managed with open repair, endovascular repair, and, rarely, amputation. Expeditious transport to the operating room for revascularization is the key for limb salvage.

Postoperative antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation use does not impact complication or reintervention rates after vein repair of arterial injury: A PROOVIT study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of antiplatelet (AP) and anticoagulation (AC) therapy after autogenous vein repair of traumatic arterial injury is controversial. The hypothesis in this study was that there is no difference in early postoperative outcomes regardless of whether AC, AP, both, or neither are used. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry was queried from November, 2013, to January, 2019, for arterial injuries repaired with a vein graft. Demographics and injury characteristics were compared. Need for in-hospital reoperation was the primary outcome in this four-arm study, assessed with two ordinal logistic regression models (1. no therapy vs. AC only vs. AC and AP; 2. no therapy vs. AP only vs. AC and AP). RESULTS: 373 patients (52 no therapy, 88 AP only, 77 AC only, 156 both) from 19 centers with recorded Injury Severity Scores (ISS) were identified. Patients who received no therapy were younger than those who received AP (27.0 vs. 34.2, p = 0.02), had higher transfusion requirement (p < 0.01 between all groups) and a different distribution of anatomic injury (p < 0.01). After controlling for age, sex, ISS, platelet count, hemoglobin, pH, lactate, INR, transfusion requirement and anatomic location, there was no association with postoperative medical therapy and in-hospital operative reintervention, or any secondary outcome, including thrombosis (p = 0.67, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Neither AC nor AP alone, nor in combination, impact complication rate after arterial repair with autologous vein. These patients can be safely treated with or without antithrombotics, recognizing that this study did not demonstrate a beneficial effect.

The Role of Endovascular Repair of Popliteal Arterial Injuries in the Acute Setting.

BACKGROUND: The role of endovascular surgery in the treatment of popliteal arterial injuries is not well established. As with other popliteal pathology, open repair has traditionally been considered the gold standard. As data has accumulated and technology advanced, however, a reassessment of the role of endovascular surgery is warranted. The aim of this study is to perform a noninferiority comparison of open versus endovascular management of traumatic popliteal injuries. Our hypothesis is that endovascular management is noninferior to open management of traumatic popliteal injuries. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was searched for adult patients from 2002-2016 for isolated popliteal arterial injury. The study used a standard noninferiority methodology to compare rates of amputation and compartment syndrome between endovascular and open surgery. Margins for noninferiority were established using established published rates of complications: 17.1% for amputations and 23.0% for compartment syndrome. Endovascular intervention would be considered noninferior to open surgery if the lower bound confidence of the complication proportion (endo/open complication rate) was greater than the predefined noninferiority margin. RESULTS: A total of 3,698 patients met inclusion criteria, with blunt injury accounting for 2,117 (57%) and penetrating injury accounting for 1,581 (43%). Within the blunt group, 1,976 (93.3%) underwent open and 141 (6.7%) endovascular surgery. The rate of compartment syndrome (percentage and 95% confidence interval) after surgery for open repair was 9.9 (8.6-11.2) and 6.4 (3.2-11.3) for endovascular repair. The complication proportion is 64.6 (59.7-69.5). The rate of amputation for open repair was 15.7 (14.2-17.4) and 14.2 (9.2-20.6) for endovascular repair. The complication proportion is 90.4 (87.4-93.4). Within the penetrating group, 1,525 (96.5%) underwent open repair and 56 (3.5%) endovascular surgery. The rate of compartment syndrome after surgery for open repair was 14.9 (13.2-16.7) and 5.4 (1.5-13.6) for endovascular repair. The complication proportion is 36.2 (31.3-41.1). The rate of amputation for open repair was 4.3 (3.3-5.4) and 3.6 (0.7-11.0) for endovascular repair. The complication proportion is 83.7 (75.3-90.6). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggests that endovascular repair of popliteal artery injury may be noninferior to open repair with respect to limb preservation. Further examination of endovascular repair in popliteal artery injury is warranted.

Temporary intravascular shunt use improves early limb salvage after extremity vascular injury.

OBJECTIVE: The use of temporary intravascular shunts (TIVSs) allow for restoration of distal perfusion and reduce ischemic time in the setting of arterial injury. As a damage control method, adjunct shunts restore perfusion during treatment of life-threatening injuries, or when patients require evacuation to a higher level of care. Single-center reports and case series have demonstrate that TIVS use can extend the opportunity for limb salvage. However, few multi-institutional studies on the topic have been reported. The objective of the present study was to characterize TIVS use through a multi-institutional registry and define its effects on early limb salvage. METHODS: Data from the Prospective Observation Vascular Injury Treatment registry was analyzed. Civilian patients aged ≥18 years who had sustained an extremity vascular injury from September 2012 to November 2018 were included. Patients who had a TIVS used in the management of vascular injury were included in the TIVS group and those who had received treatment without a TIVS served as the control group. An unadjusted comparison of the groups was conducted to evaluate the differences in the baseline and outcome characteristics. Double robust estimation combining logistic regression with propensity score matching was used to evaluate the effect of TIVS usage on the primary end point of limb salvage. RESULTS: TIVS use was identified in 78 patients from 24 trauma centers. The control group included 613 patients. Unmatched analysis demonstrated that the TIVS group was more severely injured (mean ± standard deviation injury severity score, 18.83 ± 11.76 for TIVS vs 14.93 ± 10.46 for control; P = .002) and had more severely mangled extremities (mean ± standard deviation abbreviated injury scale, extremity, score 3.23 ± 0.80 for TIVS vs 2.95 ± 0.87 for control; P = .008). Logistic regression demonstrated that propensity-matched control patients had a three times greater likelihood of amputation compared with the TIVS patients (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-11.1; P = .026). Concomitant nerve injury and orthopedic fracture were associated with a greater risk of amputation. The median follow-up for the TIVS group was 12 days (interquartile range, 4-25 days) compared with 9 days (interquartile range, 4-18 days) for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first multicenter, matched-cohort study to characterize early limb salvage as a function of TIVS use in the setting of extremity vascular injury. Shunts expedite limb perfusion and resulted in lower rates of amputation during the early phase of care. The use of TIVS should be one part of a more aggressive approach to restore perfusion in the most injured patients and ischemic limbs.

Repair of the Iliac Arterial Injury in Trauma: An Endovascular Operation?

BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy is effective for non-traumatic iliac arterial diseases. The role of endovascular surgery in traumatic iliac lesions is unclear. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes for open versus endovascular management of traumatic iliac injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was searched for patients from 2002to 2016 with iliac arterial injury. Patients were sorted by treatment modality (open versus endo) and mechanism (blunt versus penetrating) and matched using mangled extremity score variables. The proportion of patients undergoing amputation were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: In the blunt group, 1550 (82%) had endovascular and 342 (18%) had open repair. Endovascular repair was associated with a significantly lower amputation rate than open repair (0.6% versus 3.6%, P = 0.015) despite higher incidence of concomitant injuries. Venous injury was more frequent in the open group (13.7% versus 1.8%, P < 0.001). Within the penetrating group, 209 (22%) had endovascular and 755 (78%) had open repair. Again endovascular repair was associated with a lower amputation rate (0% versus 5.1%, P = 0.004). Patients undergoing endovascular repair had more severe extremity/orthopedic injury, with venous injury again associated with open repair (48.5% versus 37.4%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of iliac injuries was associated with a significantly lower rate of amputation than open surgery. Endovascular repair was associated with a higher incidence of several injuries, although open repair was associated with concomitant venous injury. Further work is required to delineate the benefit of endovascular intervention and role of venous injury in limb salvage.

Integrating Endovascular and Operative Intervention in Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of utilization of the hybrid operating room (hybrid-OR) in trauma have not been described. The aim of this study was to describe the sequencing and integration of endovascular and operative interventions in trauma using a hybrid-OR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of trauma patients who underwent both endovascular and operative intervention (2013-2019). Patients were separated into four groups based on procedure patterns: concomitant-linked (C-L), concomitant-independent, serial-linked (S-L) and serial-independent (S-I). The groups were defined as follows: C-L - related endovascular and operative interventions in the same OR; concomitant-independent - unrelated interventions in the same OR; S-L - related interventions in separate ORs; S-I - unrelated interventions in separate ORs. Patient characteristics, procedures performed and time to angiography in each group were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 202 patients, most procedures utilizing the hybrid-OR were for hemorrhage control (84.1%) and were performed in a C-L manner (36.1%). Patients in the C-L group were most likely to undergo lower extremity revascularization and received the most transfusions. Patients in the S-L and S-I groups were more severely injured, had greater severe abdominal injury and were more likely to undergo damage control surgery and solid organ interventions, respectively. The C-L group had the highest percentage of patients to undergo angiography within 12 h (77%, P = 0.053). CONCLUSION: The hybrid-OR is an ideal space for hemorrhage control in trauma, but there is room for improvement in the triage of patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage. Current practice patterns prioritize the hybrid-OR for management of lower extremity injury and are not optimal. Use of the hybrid-OR could be improved by concomitant management of patients with severe abdominal injury requiring damage control surgery.

Spinal cord injury in the setting of traumatic thoracolumbar fracture is not reliably associated with increased risk of associated intra-abdominal injury following blunt trauma: An analysis of a National Trauma Registry database.

PURPOSE: There is a common opinion that spinal fractures usually reflect the substantial impact of injuries and therefore may be used as a marker of significant associated injuries, specifically for intra-abdominal injury (IAI). The impact of concomitant spinal cord injury (SCI) with the risk of associated IAI has not been well clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of IAIs in patients suffering from spinal fractures with or without SCI. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using the Israeli National Trauma Registry was conducted. Patients with thoracic, lumbar and thoracolumbar fractures resulting from blunt mechanisms of injury from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2018 were examined, comparing the incidence, severity and mortality of IAIs in patients with or without SCI. The collected variables included age, gender, mechanism of injury, incidence and severity of the concomitant IAIs and pelvic fractures, abbreviated injury scale, injury severity score, and mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad InStat ® Version 3.10, with Chi-square test for independence and two sided Fisher's exact probability test. RESULTS: Review of the Israeli National Trauma Database revealed a total of 16,878 patients with spinal fractures. Combined thoracic and lumbar fractures were observed in 1272 patients (7.5%), isolated thoracic fractures in 4967 patients (29.4%) and isolated lumbar fractures in 10,639 patients (63.0%). The incidence of concomitant SCI was found in 4.95% (63/1272), 7.65% (380/4967) and 2.50% (266/10639) of these patients, respectively. The overall mortality was 2.5%, proving higher among isolated thoracic fracture patient than among isolated lumbar fracture counterparts (11.3% vs. 4.6%, p < 0.001). Isolated thoracic fractures with SCI were significantly more likely to die than non-SCI counterparts (8.2% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the incidence of IAIs between patients with or without SCI following thoracolumbar fractures overall or in isolated thoracic fractures; although isolated lumbar fractures patients with SCI were more likely to have renal (3.4% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.02) or bowel injuries (2.3% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.04) than the non-SCI counterparts. CONCLUSION: SCI in the setting of thoracolumbar fracture does not appear to be a marker for associated IAI. However, in a subset of isolated lumbar fractures, SCI patient is associated with increased risks for renal and bowel injury.

Safety and efficacy of radial access in trauma in 65 trauma endovascular cases.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular techniques in trauma surgery are becoming increasingly important in patient management, with procedures such as pelvic and splenic angioembolization becoming the standard of care for certain injuries. Traditionally, such interventions are performed via femoral access, although the morbidity of this approach is not insignificant (3%-10%). Transradial access (TRA) is an attractive alternative, pioneered by cardiologists, with low rates of access site complications in patients undergoing coronary intervention. Recently, this technology has extended to other interventions. The aim of this study was to present the initial experience of a radial program in a busy trauma center, with specific regard to safety and complications. METHODS: The medical records of trauma patients undergoing endovascular procedures via TRA between March 2018 and December 2018 were queried for procedural and postoperative data. Demography and injury characteristics were presented for the overall cohort, followed by a comparison of procedural data and complications between laterality. Continuous variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test and categorical variables were compared using a χ2 test. RESULTS: Over a 9-month period, 65 patients underwent 81 interventions via TRA, most commonly solid organ or pelvic angiography/embolization. Radial artery access was achieved in all patients, with procedural success achieved in all but two patients (n = 63 [96.9%]) who had hypoplastic radial artery anatomy, who underwent ulnar access. The overall technique-related complication rate was 1.5% with no difference observed between laterality (n = 1; P = .523). One patient with an admission Glasgow Coma Score of 3 and coagulopathy developed radial artery thrombosis after pelvic angiography via right TRA. Mortality was seen in seven patients (10.8%) owing to hemorrhagic shock (n = 3 [42.8%]) or multiorgan failure (n = 4 [57.1%]). There were no cases of postprocedural access site bleeding, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, vascular injury, intraoperative arrhythmia or cerebrovascular accident, arteriovenous fistula formation, or infection. CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a feasible and low-risk alternative for endovascular intervention in the trauma patient. It yields good technical success with low morbidity. Although larger studies are needed to establish the full efficacy of TRA at the multi-institutional level, this single-institution study demonstrates the legitimacy of an alternative means for endovascular intervention in the trauma patient.

Timing of intervention may influence outcomes in blunt injury to the carotid artery.

OBJECTIVE: Blunt carotid artery injury (BCI) is present in approximately 1.0% to 2.7% of all blunt trauma admissions and can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Management ranges from antithrombotic therapy alone to surgery, where potential indications include pseudoaneurysm, failed or contraindication to medical therapy, and progression of neurologic symptoms. Still, optimal management, including approach and timing, continues to be an active area for debate. The goal of this study was to assess the epidemiologic characteristics of BCI, and, after controlling for presenting features intrinsic to the data, compare outcomes based on management, operative approach, and timing of intervention. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of adult BCI patients identified within the National Trauma Data Bank from 2002 to 2016. The National Trauma Data Bank is the largest trauma database in the United States, collating data from each trauma admission for more than 900 trauma centers. Independent variables of interest included nonoperative versus operative management (OM); endovascular versus open intervention, and early (within 24 hours) versus delayed (after 24 hours) intervention. For each independent variable, groups were compared after propensity score matching to control for presenting factors and patterns of injury. RESULTS: There were 9190 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 812 of whom underwent operative intervention (open, n = 288; endovascular, n = 481, both: n = 43). During the review, there was no difference in proportion of OM over time, although there was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of open intervention (0.48% per year; P < .05). For outcomes, operative versus nonoperative management (nOM) resulted in no difference in mortality, but the operative group demonstrated an increased risk of stroke (11.8% vs 6.5%), longer hospital and intensive care length of stay, and more days on mechanical ventilation (P < .001 for each). With regard to timing: mortality was increased for early intervention (early, 16% vs delayed, 6.3%; P < .001), which was predominantly driven by the endovascular cohort (early, 19.2% vs delayed, 2.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was no significant trend in the overall volume of operative or nOM; however, when considering approach to OM, there was a significant decrease in open procedures. Consistent with previous literature, injury to the neck, head, and chest was significant associated with BCI. Also outcomes demonstrated an increased prevalence of stroke after operative relative to nOM. Importantly, after critically assessing the timing to intervention, results strongly suggested that, if possible, intervention should be delayed for at least 24 hours.

Can Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta Fly? Assessing Aortic Balloon Performance for Aeromedical Evacuation.

BACKGROUND: Noncompressible torso hemorrhage remains a leading cause of death. Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) placement may occur before transport; however, its efficacy has not been demonstrated at altitude. We hypothesized that changes in altitude would not result in blood pressure changes proximal to a deployed REBOA. METHODS: A simulation model for 7Fr guidewireless REBOA was used at altitudes up to 22,000 feet. Female pigs then underwent hemorrhagic shock to a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 40 mm Hg. After hemorrhage, a REBOA catheter was deployed in the REBOA group and positioned but not inflated in the no-REBOA group. Animals underwent simulated aeromedical evacuation at 8000 ft or were left at ground level. After altitude exposure, the balloon was deflated, and the animals were observed. RESULTS: Taking the REBOA catheter to 22,000 ft in the simulation model resulted in a lower systolic blood pressure but a preserved MAP. In the porcine model, REBOA increased both systolic blood pressure and MAP compared with no-REBOA (P < 0.05) and was unaffected by altitude. No differences in postflight blood pressure, acidosis, or systemic inflammatory response were observed between ground and altitude REBOA groups. CONCLUSIONS: REBOA maintained MAP up to 22,000 feet in an inanimate model. In the porcine model, REBOA deployment improved MAP, and the balloon remained effective at altitude.

Practice, Practice, Practice! Effect of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta Volume on Outcomes: Data From the AAST AORTA Registry.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an endovascular adjunct to hemorrhage control. Success relies on institutional support and focused training in arterial access. We hypothesized that hospitals with higher REBOA volumes will be more successful than low-volume hospitals at aortic occlusion with REBOA. METHODS: This is a retrospective study from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Registry from November 2013 to January 2018. Patients aged ≥18 y who underwent REBOA were included. Successful placement of REBOA catheters (defined as hemodynamic improvement with balloon inflation) was compared between high-volume (≥80 cases; two hospitals), mid-volume (10-20 cases; four hospitals), and low-volume (<10 cases; 14 hospitals) hospitals, adjusting for patient factors. RESULTS: Of 271 patients from 20 hospitals, 210 patients (77.5%) had successful REBOA placement. Most patients were male (76.0%) and sustained blunt trauma (78.1%). cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was ongoing at the time of REBOA placement in 34.5% of patients. Inpatient mortality was 67.4%, unchanged by hospital volume. Multivariable logistic regression found increased odds of successful REBOA placement at high-volume versus low-volume hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 7.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.10-27.29; P = 0.002) and mid-volume versus low-volume hospitals (OR, 7.82; 95% CI, 1.52-40.31; P = 0.014) and decreased odds among patients undergoing CPR during REBOA placement (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.34; P < 0.001) when adjusting for age, sex, mechanism of injury, prehospital CPR, CPR on admission, transfer status, hospital location of REBOA placement, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 13, and injury severity. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with higher REBOA volumes were more likely to achieve hemodynamic improvement with REBOA inflation. However, mortality and complication rates were unchanged. Independent of hospital volume, ongoing CPR is associated with a decreased odds of successful REBOA placement.

A Comparison of Transradial and Transfemoral Access for Splenic Angio-Embolisation in Trauma: A Single Centre Experience.

OBJECTIVE: The study compared transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) for splenic angio-embolisation (SAE), with a focus on technical success, intra-operative adjuncts, and complications. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative study of all trauma patients undergoing SAE by TRA or TFA between February 2015 and February 2019 at a single institution. The medical records were queried for procedural and post-operative data, with comparisons made based on access site. Continuous variables were compared using a two tailed t test and categorical variables were compared using a chi square test. RESULTS: Over a four year period, there were 47 cases of SAE via TRA and 127 via TFA. Technical success was 95.7% during TRA and 98.4% during TFA (p = .30). Technical failures were a result of failed splenic artery cannulation after successful radial or femoral access. Time to splenic cannulation was shorter in the TRA group (19 min vs. 30 min; p = .008). Two or fewer catheters were used during TRA, whereas more than two catheters were needed during TFA (p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in procedure length, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, or contrast volume between groups. Nine patients (5.2%) developed access related complications, all in the TFA group (p = .12). Mortality rate was 2.3% (n = 4), with no statistical significance between groups (p = .71). CONCLUSION: While TFA is the conventional strategy for SAE, TRA is a safe and efficacious modality for SAE in trauma patients. Although larger studies are needed to establish the full efficacy of TRA for SAE at the multi-institutional level, this single centre study demonstrates the legitimacy of an alternative means for SAE in the trauma population.

Penetrating Injury to the Carotid Artery: Characterizing Presentation and Outcomes from the National Trauma Data Bank.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating injury to the neck can be devastating because of the multiple vital structures in close proximity. In the event of injury to the carotid artery, there is a significantly increased likelihood of morbidity or mortality. The purpose of this study was to assess presenting characteristics associated with penetrating injury to the carotid artery and directly compare approaches to surgical management. METHODS: Data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2002-2016 were accessed to evaluate adult patients sustaining penetrating injury to the common or internal carotid artery. Management (operative versus nonoperative) and surgical approach (open versus endovascular) were evaluated based on presentation characteristics, and outcomes were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred ninety-one patients fitting inclusion criteria and surviving past the emergency department were included in analyses (nonoperative: 1,976 [58.3%] patients and operative: 1,415 [41.7%] patients). The operative group was further classified by intervention as open = 1,192 patients and endovascular: 154 patients. On presentation, the nonoperative group demonstrated significantly higher prevalence of coma (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8: nonoperative = 49.3% versus operative = 40.8%, P < 0.001), severe overall injury burden (Injury Severity Score ≥25: nonoperative = 42.3% versus operative = 33.3%, P < 0.001), and severe head injury (Abbreviated Injury Score ≥ 3: nonoperative = 44.9% versus operative = 22.0%, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching, the nonoperative group demonstrated higher mortality (nonoperative = 28.9% versus operative = 18.5%, P < 0.001), and lower rates of stroke (nonoperative = 6.6% versus operative - = 10.5%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in outcomes relating to surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that nonoperative patients often present with a more severe overall injury burden, particularly injury to the head, and not surprisingly, have higher rates of mortality. The lack of significant differences in outcomes relating to surgical approach indicates open versus endovascular invention should be individualized to the patient-for example, based on presenting characteristics and the location of the injury.

A Surgical Endovascular Trauma Service Increases Case Volume and Decreases Time to Hemostasis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a recently active endovascular trauma service (ETS) on case volume and time to hemostasis, as a complement to an existing interventional radiology (IR) service. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Endovascular techniques are vital for trauma care, but timely access can be a challenge. There is a paucity of data on the effect of a multispecialty team for delivery of endovascular hemorrhage control. METHODS: The electronic medical record of trauma patients undergoing endovascular procedures between 2013 and 2018 was queried for provider type (IR or ETS). Case volume and rates were expressed per 100 monthly admissions, normalizing for seasonal variation. Interrupted time series analysis was used to model the case rate pre- and post-introduction of the ETS. Admission-to-procedure-time data were collected for pelvic angioembolization as a marker of patients requiring emergency hemostasis. RESULTS: During 6 years, 1274 admission episodes required endovascular interventions. Overall case volume increased from 2.7 to 3.6 at a rate of 0.006 (P = 0.734) after introduction of the ETS. IR case volume decreased from 3.3 to 2.6 at a rate of 0.03 (P = 0.063). ETS case volume increased at a rate of 0.048 (P < 0.001), which was significantly different from the IR trend (P < 0.001). Median (interquartile range) time-to-procedure (hours) was significantly shorter for pelvic angioembolization [3.0 (4.4) vs 4.3 (3.6); P < 0.001] when ETS was compared to IR. CONCLUSION: A surgical ETS increases case volume and decreases time to hemostasis for trauma patients requiring time sensitive interventions. Further work is required to assess patient outcome following this change.

Handheld Tissue Oximetry for the Prehospital Detection of Shock and Need for Lifesaving Interventions: Technology in Search of an Indication?

Improved prehospital methods for assessing the need for lifesaving interventions (LSIs) are needed to gain critical lead time in the care of the injured. We hypothesized that threshold values using prehospital handheld tissue oximetry would detect occult shock and predict LSI requirements. This was a prospective observational study of adult trauma patients emergently transported by helicopter. Patients were monitored with a handheld tissue oximeter (InSpectra Spot Check; Hutchinson Technology Inc, Hutchinson, MN), continuous vital signs, and 21 laboratory measurements obtained both in the field with a portable analyzer and at the time of admission. Shock was defined as base excess ≥ 4 or lactate > 3 mmol/L. Eighty-eight patients were enrolled with a median Injury Severity Score of 16 (interquartile range, 5-29). The median hemoglobin saturation in the capillaries, venules, and arterioles (StO2) value for all patients was 82% (interquartile range, 76%-87%; range, 42%-98%). StO2 was abnormal (< 75%) in 18 patients (20%). Eight were hypotensive (9%) and had laboratory-confirmed evidence of occult shock. StO2 correlated poorly with shock threshold laboratory values (r = -0.17; 95% confidence interval, -0.33 to 1.0; P = .94). The area under the receiver operating curve was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.63) for StO2 < 75% and laboratory-confirmed shock. StO2 was not associated with LSI need on admission when adjusted for multiple covariates, nor was it independently associated with death. Handheld tissue oximetry was not sensitive or specific for identifying patients with prehospital occult shock. These results do not support prehospital StO2 monitoring despite its inclusion in several published guidelines.

Utility of a tubularized extracellular matrix as an alternative conduit for arteriovenous fistula aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of segmental arteriovenous fistula aneurysms (AVFAs) remains a challenge in dialysis access preservation. We examined our experience with the use of tubularized extracellular matrix (ECM; CorMatrix, Roswell, Ga) for AVFA repair. METHODS: Between October 2013 and January 2015, we conducted a prospective study of CorMatrix ECM for AVFA repair. All patients underwent intraoperative fistulography. Patients with central venous stenosis or occlusion had simultaneous angioplasty and stenting as indicated. The aneurysm and overlying skin were then resected, and an ECM patch was fashioned into a tube for interposition repair. Patients with multiple AVFAs underwent staged repair. Cannulation of the repaired segments was allowed after 6 weeks. RESULTS: During the study period, 15 patients (40% male; mean age, 49.5 years) underwent 18 AVFA repairs using ECM (3 staged repairs). Six patients (40%) underwent simultaneous treatment of central vein lesions, whereas eight patients (53%) had associated skin erosion. Treated sites included radiocephalic (2), brachiobasilic (1), and brachiocephalic (15) AVFAs. All patients had hemodialysis at an alternative location on the same extremity without the need for catheter placement. Five patients underwent a follow-up ultrasound examination at a mean of 6 weeks. All studies demonstrated patency of the ECM segments without stenosis. At a mean follow-up time of 6.9 months, two thrombosis events were observed, both in patients with known refractory central venous stenosis treated with previous angioplasty (2) and stenting (1). Both patients required new access placement. No complications were attributable to ECM sites. CONCLUSIONS: ECM is an alternative conduit for salvage of an autologous AVFA. This technique may help avoid the use of prosthetic grafts and hemodialysis catheters. Patients with associated central venous stenosis are at risk of thrombosis.